Rochester Planning Board looks at agricultural zone rules, setbacks

Monday

Oct 22, 2012 at 3:15 AM

By Liz Markhlevskayalmark@fosters.com

ROCHESTER — Preserving the rural atmosphere of the agricultural zone while avoiding overregulation was at issue during last week’s Planning Board meeting.As board members continue working on comprehensive rezoning, they discussed what type of side setbacks should be set for lots in the agricultural zone. A setback is a distance between a property’s lot line and a structure within that lot.The current ordinance incorporates 25-foot side setbacks in agricultural zones, meaning that a property owner would not be able to build a side garage or shed within that 25-foot buffer without a variance from the city. Previously, Planning Board members considered changing those side setbacks to eight feet, as they keep working on comprehensive rezoning.In a 5-4 vote on Monday,Oct. 15, however, board members settled on incorporating 10-foot side setbacks, but not before a lengthy discussion.“One of the points we’re trying to make is being as least restrictive as we can with people’s land,” said David Walker, City Council representative to the Planning Board.He said he would be OK with side setbacks being as small as five feet in the agricultural zone. That way, property owners would be able to place structures on the side of their houses without having to instead revert to building in the rear of their homes, where many also keep their septic systems.Planning Board member Stephen Martineau, on the other hand, said he’s concerned about property owners building close to their neighbors’ land in the agricultural zone.Tim Fontneau, who also serves on the Planning Board, said having such small setbacks in the agricultural zone would go against the land use master plan, on which the comprehensive rezoning project is supposed to be based.He said when the master plan was being developed about 10 years ago, one of the biggest priorities for citizens was preserving the rural and agricultural atmosphere in the city, as well as the scenic roads overlooking open spaces.Fontneau said for him, the ideal side setbacks in the agricultural zone would be 25 to 35 feet. Planning Board member Rick Healey said with larger setbacks and other regulations, property owners would end up paying taxes on property that has a lot of area they can’t build on.“That’s not fair, taxes themselves are not fair,” he said.At the suggestion of Planning Board Chairman Nel Sylvain, board members voted and approved new setbacks that would come to light as part of the new zoning ordinance — 10-foot side setbacks, and 20-foot front and rear setbacks for the agricultural zone. Now the zoning ordinance incorporates 35-foot front setbacks, 25-foot side setbacks, and 50-foot rear setbacks in the agricultural zone.Once the Planning Board completes the comprehensive rezoning project, the proposed document will go before the City Council, and the council will vote to approve the final document after having an opportunity to make any changes. Public hearings on the project will also be held.After it’s approved, the comprehensive rezoning plan, which has been in the works for about 10 years, will replace Chapter 42, the zoning chapter, of the city’s general ordinances.During Monday’s meeting, board members also discussed potentially rezoning some areas of the city from agricultural to Residential 1, which would by definition consist mostly of single-family homes. This week, the Planning Board will meet to continue looking at the zoning map and determining which zoning district should be located in which areas of Rochester.Planning Board members will also be tasked with deciding which areas are most fitting for multifamily homes such as apartment buildings. Previously, a Residential 3 zone had been a part of the rezoning plans, and that zone would have acted as a buffer between the more dense residential zones and the agricultural zones. Residential 3, which has been removed from plans a few months ago, would also have been the zone where multifamily homes would be primarily situated.With removal of Residential 3 zone, a question arose on Monday about whether multifamily homes would be fitting in agricultural zones.“I’ll adamantly oppose any multifamily in the agricultural zone,” said Fontneau, who is also the vice chairman of the Planning Board.Planning Board member Derek Peters agreed, saying the board should ensure that multifamily homes are only located in the Residential 2 zone.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.